The St. Johns herald., 1887-12-22

l ''If the owner of personal property within a state resides in another state, which taxes him for that property as part of h1s general property attached to his person, this action of the latter state does not affect in the least the right of the state in which the property is situated, to tax it also. It is hard ly necessary to cite authorities on a point so elementary" And in case of State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 15 Wallace, 3O5, Chief Jus tice Woodward, of Pennsylvania, said: But where the property is in our jurisdiction and enjoys the protection of our state government it is justly taxable; and it is of no moment that the owner, who is re- quired to pay the tax resides else where ; Protection and taxation are reciprocal rights. We think it will be found that these cases (like the Missouri cases) that require tangible personal property to be taxed at the domicile of the owner are mostly where the corporations are interstate in character, or.where the citizen. owns personal property in diffegfDt c0uRtiest oftHe0 same stataiI 1nfeasess of, this kind, it has Sometimes been held that the prop erty would follow the residence of the owner. The tendency of ad publications, however, seems adverse to even this limit upon the power of taxation.
 Great cities sometimes grow by inscrutabIe laws but they usually lie at the confines of two or more different states. Chicago and Kan sas City are great railroad centres, with the headquarters or principal offices of most of their railroads located in these cities. From these foci, these great trunk lines radiate like arteries in every direction, and permeate many of the surrounding states and territories. Now in these great industrial regions, the earth yields bounteously to the hands of industry; and great rolling trains startle the prairies and wake the slumbering echoes of the night, as they hurl the commerce of the peo- pie on towards these great marts of trade. Now, would it be just, be- cause Chicago and Kansas City are situated, the one in the state of Missouri, and the other in the state of Illinois, that these two states or to make it still more palpable, only one county in each of these states-should have all the revenue arising from a rightful taxation of all the rolling stock-the tangible, personal property of all these rail- roads? And that, too, simply for the reason that the domiciles, CT headquarters of these roads are sit uated at Chicago and Kansas City?I The greatest use of much of this rolling stock is had in other states has it not acquired a situs in those states and in the taxing districts where used in those states, for the purposes of taxation, although it's owners may have their domiciles, or these railroads their chief offices,
 
 elsewhere? Would it be just that this vast property should receive it's principal protection from the gov of these other states and not bear it's fair proportion of tax ation to support the public burdens thereof? Would a court in making such an allowance be equitable? Should Bernalillo county, N. M., in which Albuquerque is situated have all the revenue arising from the taxation of all plaintiffs rolling stock used upon it's western divi- sion? Says Judge Cooley, on page 598 of his great work on constitu- tional limitations "The power to impose is one so unlimited in force